available for purchase. thank you for your attention. at this point, we will conduct our swearing in process. if you intend to testify at any of tonight's hearings and wish to have the board give your testimony evidenciary wait, please stand, raise your right hand, and say i do after you have been sworn in. any member of the public may speak without taking this both pursuant to their rights under the sunshine ordinance of the administrative code. thank you. do you solemnly swear and affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth? thank you. >> 90. president goh and commissioners, we have a one housekeeping item. this is related to appeal no. 5.

this matter has been withdrawn and will not be heard this evening. we can move into public comment. is there any member of the public who would like to speak to an item that is not on tonight's calendar? please step forward. >> good evening. ken cleveland and i work for the building owners and managers association. i am not speaking on any particular item tonight. i want to give a little context to what is called the mobile food facilities ordinance. >> i think that is a subject matter that is being taken up this evening. >> but it is not relevant to any particular appeal tonight. >> when this was good to the other one year ago -- >> i think it makes sense for you to speak during the hearing of the case. hold off and we will hear you then. >> ok. >> i just want to say happy

holidays and ♪ and goodlatte board of appeals and all of your city deals in a city -- in a city made of steel, the board of appeals is made of stone. make that happen in your home make it fast make it last make a good deal you can have it all her and in your city life, make it happen, make your appeals happen make it happen you will make it all your life. what a city feeling keep appealin' make it real and make

it happen what a city feeling and good luck appealing ♪ thanks. >> thank you. is there any other member of the public who like to speak? seeing none, we will move to item two, commissioner comments and questions. >> i do not want to make a big speech. actually, i do. i appreciated serving with commissioner tonya peterson and we will miss her intelligence and kindness and thoughtfulness. she really cared about the law and let the law guide her decision making. i was fortunate enough to work with her on rewriting the rules last year. and serve as vice president when she was president along with director gold seen -- goldstein

and the deputy city attorney, we rewrote the rules together and it was a great experience for me. we were successful in our attempts to make them more fair and protect the due process. i just want to say commissioner peterson will be sorely missed. vice president garcia: i would agree. i will not make a big speech about it because i hope someday she will come back. so that we can properly honor her. anyone who is watching the meetings is properly familiar with the skills she had up here. she could analyze issues that were relatively complex and could concisely state what her points of view were about that. all that is self-evident to what i would want to talk about.

i was always impressed that she would come here after a long day at the zoo. she has two children, running a household, taking care of that. she would have to deal with going back and forth across the bridge and a couple of days every week. she would always show up here totally cheerful and upbeat. it was pretty remarkable. anyone who has not gotten to know her, if you have an opportunity to, you would consider it to be a pleasure. i will definitely miss commissioner peterson. >> i will wait to say it to her personally. >> are there any public comments on the commissioner comments? seeing none, we move to item 3, the adoption of minutes. for your consideration are the discussion and adoption of the minutes for the meeting on december 7, 2011.

>> i wanted to add that under item number two, i was speaking about a particular rule, 5.5, and i wanted to add that. >> ok. is there any public comment on the rules? -- on the minutes, i am sorry? seeing none, is there a motion. >> so moved. >> if you could call the roll, please? commissioner fung: aye. vice president garcia: aye. >> the minutes are adopted.

>> i will call item no. 4, appeal number 07-209, gary martinovsky versus the taxi commission, appealing the removal on august 30, 2007 of the appellants name from the public convenience and necessity medallion waiting list. this was on the board called the chair calendar for the past four years awaiting the outcome of a lawsuit filed against the city in which subject matter was being considered. that litigation is now over and when contacted, the appellant indicated that he wanted to have this matter heard. an october hearing that was elected but after mr. martinovsky failed to submit a brief, the matter was rescheduled to this date. mr. martinovsky indicated he was unhappy with the hearing date but refused to suggest an alternative. during a telephone conversation late last week, he indicated he did not attend to appear today. i am assuming he is not here.

with that, i would recommend that we call the department representative to give him an opportunity to speak. president goh: agreed. >> good evening, commissioners. there is not much for me to say in this matter. we believe mr. martinovsky was properly removed from the wait list. in 2006, he was given notice that he was eligible for a potential medallion. he responded that he had not been driving his vehicle since 2001. as you are well aware, as an applicant for a medallion, you must be able to demonstrate that you follow the full time driver requirements. at the time, his application was two of the last three years

of driving before getting a medallion career he responded by saying you had not driven. he was given a time waiver. what that would do it would give you one extra year to give you a chance to improve your driving and allow you to add an additional year of driving. he never responded. it read -- expired in july of 2007. after that, he was notified that there is a hearing and that he would be removed from the list. if he did not appear. he did not appear and was properly removed from the list carried and we were never able to get to the issue of whether this alleged disability would preclude him to obtaining a medallion. we feel he was properly removed from the waiting list. there are still 2800 names on that list, 16-17 years long. it is time for the next person on the list to move forward.

thank you. >> questions, commissioners? thank you. president goh: is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, i do not believe there is a need to call for rebuttal. commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> i would like to note, for the record, that the department who has jurisdiction over this particular issue, plus our own department, tried to do everything we could to accommodate this gentleman. it did not quite work out. i believe that our efforts are quite clear. vice president garcia: is there a motion? commissioner fung: i would move to uphold.

president goh: i would recommend adopting findings at a later hearing given that the appellant is not present. if you could call the roll. >> the motion was hit from vice president garcia and. -- commissioner fong. pahor -- commissioner fung. to adopt the hearings at a later time and. on that motion to uphold findings at a later time -- vice president garcia: aye.

president goh: aye. commissioner fong: aye. president goh: we will move on to item 6 a-i. i will call those now. the appellants art sheila murphy, umberto gibin, michelle funkhouser, david davari, john isaacs, osman

zughayer, muna azzghayer, arsalan najmabadi, howard fish, carlos aguilar. we will give each of the appellants an opportunity to speak in order of the appeal number. then we will hear from the permit holder and the department and take a couple of comments. we will start with the appellate for appeal #103. vice president garcia: before we begin, you did not say how

everyone gets seven minutes. >> the time is at the board's discretion. she has indicated she would allow them 14 minutes for testimony and six minutes of rebuttal. that time could be adjusted as necessary. vice president garcia: if some of kellan before you has stated most of the fact or the evidence, if you would want us to consider, would you consider not repeating that and not feel compelled to take your entire seven minutes. if it gets too repetitive, we might lose track of the points you're trying to make. thank you. >> good evening. on behalf of the owners and property managers of the location of this. what is particularly striking about this permit is the fact that it is a discretionary permit which is appealable to the board.

and yet they fit -- they failed to exercise discretion. that allows the permit holder to fill out the form, pay the fees, and even though a protest hearing was held with all of the objections you're going to hear tonight, the only condition that was on the permit was to allow them to operate at this location conditionally for six months. if you read the legislation or the guidelines, they allow for the dtw hearing officer to exercise discretion in regards to the process. the issues that stand out are the impact on other food service businesses. the guidelines in the code were very clear that it was not just limited to the kind of designation that dpw adopted in its guidelines. there were other considerations. as we stated in our brief, there

are lots and lots of a food- service businesses that have take away food and food that is not necessarily even in a sit- down situation. the economic impact that arise from that are tremendous. there are a limited number of food dollars that will be spent. if they are not going to go to the brick and mortar businesses and they're going to go to the food trucks, and the food trucks is going to have some extra impact, and there is going to be more guarded on the sidewalk because there are not a lot of containers available on my client's property. the fact that you have got within a few blocks of this location, as we show in exhibit b in our brief, there are almost 20 brick and mortar food service businesses. can we turn that on? thank you. you, within that radius, the

number of businesses that are operating. starbucks is already in my client's building but chpotle is coming. you will have caught a short distance from the food trucks, more food service businesses that will compete. we have got a situation where somebody can identify a commercial parking space that is limited to a one-hour restriction and use it all day based on the way this current was issued. if you read the dpw brief, it seems like the mta is going to enforce those parking restrictions. that is a conundrum to us. you have someone who will occupy this space from about 9:00 a.m. -- from about 9:00-4:00.

and the parking officer will come by and asked people to move them around. you will hear from skyline and some of the dollar appellants. last but not least, they have five other locations where they can operate outside the downtown area. all of them would allow them to earn a good return but not have the competition and the adverse impact that will be created here. the last point i want to make with regard to the dpw failure to utilize its discretionary power is the only finding the was made by the hearing officer after hearing our protest was that it encourages the youth and vitality of the san francisco neighborhood. there was no findings about any of the factual issues. what is interesting is this is what language was lifted from the intent on the permit. it does not appear in the

ordinance, just the notice of intent. if the officer did not hear the testimony and decided to approve this location without giving any consideration to the protests that were raised at the hearing. i would like to give the rest of my time to my client, sheila murphy. >> my name is sheila murphy. i am the property management, the person on the ground. i make sure the surrounding sidewalks are clean, that they are repaired, that there is no trip and fall hazards, that the landscaping looks nice, that security is provided, that the seats are clean and tidy. i am the one who knows it is a very busy plaza and sidewalk. at that stretch of sidewalk that they are showing, it is only 6 feet wide, when you take into

account the trees and the hoop for the bike parking. there are only two or three people that can pass by there at one time. i do not understand how this added congestion could be seen as not a nuisance to the area. i would also like to say there was no outreach at all from the truck owners for what the needs might be of the tenants of the building or that area. there was no discussion about the plaza. no discussion about restrooms, trash pickup, nothing. in fact, when the original notice came out, they mislabeled be addressed. we were not 3 noticed at that time. we had a short time to pull together our comments to object to the public hearing. i felt like anything we said was

not being listened to. it is a very congested area. but but we often have situations where people are bumping into one another. we regularly have a security guard go around to pick up little items that have fallen. the parking out there is very limited. tenants would like to see more parking. we do have chipotle moving in. there will be 132 feet from the truck window. starbucks is approximately 190 feet. the entrance to the building is only 130 feet away. i would like all of these things to be considered. thank you. >> we can here for the appellate from the next appeal, number 104.

>> hello. my name is karen smith. they stole a couple of my items, so i will try on bill -- i will try and killed on them. my client has for restaurants within 300 feet of the proposed location. with any dpw guidelines, the issuance of a permit states that the officer may consider the following -- similar service, a type of food, and like food. i have a picture so you can visually see -- maybe, here we go. this is a 50 california and this

is davis street here. he wanted part here. this is the radius of the 300- foot radius. this is my building with the four restaurants. since the application was filed, chipotle has signed. here is their menu that shows that they sell burritos. right here. and here is the truck menu that shows that they sell burritos. i do not know if you can see that. and this is in direct conflict with the dpw guidelines. next, and davis street is a one- way street. when i submitted my brief, i was unclear on the exact location of where they wanted to be. this truck is parked a few free

-- parked a few feet in front but it is going down a one-way street and. in the industry brief, they said they have a truck in the works that will be available in january. i did not see that they had an order or an invoice for what the location of the opening of the new truck was going to be, whether on the left or right side. i will make it short. this is one-hour parking. issuance of this permit only benefits food truck owners. vk industries will park in prime

real estate place for nothing in. they will trust the money out. we urge you to permanently revoke this german and to advise the city administration to revisit this ordinance in its entirety. thank you. >> thank you. moving on to appeal number 11- 105. >> i am representing this appellant. because there are so many other people who are appealing this particular permit, rather than take up the boards time, we will rely on their testimony. thank you. >> thank you. moving on, 11-106.

>> hello. i am here on behalf of appeal number 6-g. i intend to have my clients the as well so i will keep its grief. i have also over 600 petitions of signatures of people who believe that we do not need the additional vitality of these trucks in the financial district. you will see that there are even more signatures for that. we are here today to try to prevent devastating impact to small-business restaurant owners. it is going to be, even the six

months that has been talked about could put these businesses out of business. it is a devastating impact to have your competition, who has much less cost and expenses, hard right in front of you. you can see that from the very buildings. to apply for dpw, it is staggering to me how they can propose these things. they have said that even though it is cornyn out that the parking or they are talking about doing it, these trucks would violate parking regulations, because there is only one-hour parking allowed and loading and unloading and yellowstone's defined as active as faces, that dpt will regulate that a. why can they approve a permit that they already know is in

violation? how can you approve a permit that they already know is in violation of a code of san francisco? with regard to the restaurant requirement that is required under state law to be within 2 1/3 feet of the location. they say that dph will regulate that. you cannot keep approving permits in the hopes that some other -- what kind of enforcement is that? does that require the appellant to go to every agency and say to them, they do not have these permits. they cannot park there. how is that going to be working? that should not have to happen. there are others who will speak about the economic impacts about these things. in one of the points i want to make is that we are not against food trucks. these businesses can locate and have submitted permits for other locations in san francisco. that is fine.

the financial district does not need new vitality of food trucks down there. my office is in the financial district. i am walking down the streets and we do not need additional activity there. i want to point out -- i am here opposing beals street and california street, those two locations. beale street, besides the violations that exist, just a pragmatic look at the existing conditions, you will see reported four construction activities on the street. there is construction activity proposed until december 2014. permits being allowed for that. this is also the block that goes directly to the transit terminals. where buses and everything else goes every day. one of the locations are want to